Seventh of 8 weekly articles documenting bias in “The Cambridge Student”: Lent 2009 Issue 7.
Quite extreme biased reporting this week: “Students launched a ‘Vote Yes’ campaign supporting the creation of a CUSU sabbatical post for an Ethical Affairs Officer at the Sidgwick Site on Tuesday.”
The article manages to cover a column of the front page barely mentioning the existence of opposition to such a move. Instead it details the action of the Yes Campaign. Apparently thirteen people constitutes a noteworthy demonstration nowadays.
“Thirteen campaigners spelt out the word YES with their bodies on the lawn at Sidgwick site. The display was accompanied by a banner reading ‘vote yes for a fulltime Ethical Affairs Officer’. The campaign dropped similar banners across the city.
The demonstration marks the beginning of a week of campaigning before the referendum takes place at the start of next week. The campaign has spread to the social networking site Facebook, with opposing ‘Vote Yes’ and ‘Vote No’ groups established to encourage debate. ‘Vote Yes’ advocates announced plans to step up the campaign over the coming week with additional “body spells” in Market Square and the Downing Site.
CUSU’S Ethical Affairs Team is currently run by part time officers, unlike the other teams, such as Welfare and Education, which are headed by sabbatical posts.
Supporters of the sabbatical post argue that the expansion of responsibilities make the role of Ethical Affairs Chair too demanding to carry out on a part-time basis.
“To be performed professionally, this job needs full-time and continuous attention, which is impossible to juggle with full-time study,” the ‘Vote Yes’ Facebook group reads.”
Finally,
“Opinion within CUSU remains divided.”
This is followed by brief quotes from a “No” campaigner and a “Yes” campaigner.
A minor example of bias on page 7, in a story about university fees. The pull-quote pushes the TCS line: “The extra funding has to come from the government’s investment, not students.” “The government seems increasingly unwilling to indulge universities in need of subsidy”. Need?
Friedman: “We ought to have a system under which everybody who wants to go to college can go there. He has to pay his own way, either now or later on…
But I don’t see that any reason whatsoever why I shouldn’t have been required to pay back that money. Individuals pursuing their separate individual interests also provide public benefits. Of course I think that the public benefited from my getting an education, but the primary beneficiary was me. I was the one who got the benefit from it. I was the one who had the higher income.”
This term has seen some of the best Varsity editorials. Unfortunately, it’s also seen some of the worst TCS editorials — a shame given their high quality in some past terms. Usually they don’t have much to say. This week they did. “While we wouldn’t necessarily vote for them, we’d like to see some openly right-wing candidates to oppose the overwhelmingly left-wing consensus.” This is a strange view — that people we disagree with should be candidates to give the impression of a more vibrant democracy. (I suggest the sentence “The Cambridge Right has seemingly decided to remain sniping from the sidelines rather than fielding a candidate to engage in open debate”, assuming that the “Cambridge Right” is an institution or an organisation, betrays TCS’ collectivist bias, as do the headlines “Your CUSU candidates” and “TCS shows you your next leaders”.) I also am very surprised that “this paper is backing the outspoken activist Ed Maltby, someone who has shown consistent dedication to campaigning on behalf of students.” I hardly think the self-described “revolutionary socialist” can be described as “a candidate who will represent us stridently and defend our interests vociferously” (my emphasis). For example, he participated in the recent “occupation” of the Law Faculty, which was very far from popular.